Reported: Susan Rice unmasked names caught up in surveillance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a dumb question, I know-but if they were masked then how how can she be blamed for targeting specific people in unmasking for political purposes? Weren't they, you know, masked?

It's not a dumb question. It's common sense. She could not have known who the masked persons were. That's why she needed it UNmasked. It is ridiculous to assert she went through the unmasking request knowing beforehand it was XYZ person on Trump team. It also STILL negates the fact that the XYZ person WAS ON THE TRUMP TEAM.

I mean, imagine the Rush Limbaugh outrage in the inverse. Susan Rice sees intel. Suspects US PERSON 1 is up to bad, bad shit with a foreign enemy. But then says "oh no but what if it's somehow Hillary/Podesta/Huma!? I will sit on this, we don't need to know who it was." And then later we find out Susan Rice saw troubling shit, and did not unmask the names on partisan grounds. THE SHIT WOULD HIT THE FAN, because her job is to *protect nationals security.*

That's all she was doing, that's all she did. It is simply too bad for whoever was unmasked that they were the ones engaging in criminal activity and got caught. She didn't do a damn thing wrong. Argue the leaking classified info all you want but that is a separate issue entirely from unmasking, and that argument also falls apart when you want to bitch about it and then demand to see Rice's evidence for unmasking, which would be classified info.

She has no authority to ask for these people to be unmasked.

Of course she does. You are 100% wrong. It can be denied but even in trump's fevered imagination it's not that she "has no authority to ask" ffs.

You are not correct. She does not:

Understand: There would have been no intelligence need for Susan Rice to ask for identities to be unmasked. If there had been a real need to reveal the identities — an intelligence need based on American interests — the unmasking would have been done by the investigating agencies. The national-security adviser is not an investigator. She is a White House staffer. The president’s staff is a consumer of intelligence, not a generator or collector of it. If Susan Rice was unmasking Americans, it was not to fulfill an intelligence need based on American interests; it was to fulfill a political desire based on Democratic-party interests.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446415/susan-rice-unmasking-trump-campaign-members-obama-administration-fbi-cia-nsa

And not for political reasons. Innocent people don't lie, and she tried to fan the flames by running to MSNBC of all places. She only proved what Trump tweeted. It is very serious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama spied on trump plain and simple. Just like Nixon spying on the DNC.

It's obvious Rice was caught lying. It seems Trump was right after all. Considering how he abused his power with the DOJ this is no surprise. Sounds like it's going to get worse for Obama. I'm sure he's not happy with Rice at this point.

You are delusional. Rice was not lying. Rice did her job. Trump was the one caught with his hand in the cookie jar. You can keep repeating the she lied over and over again, despite 23 pages of people providing links AND FBI testimony from Comey that states otherwise. You know Trump is in trouble. If it feels good to repeat the lies, then by all means, keep it up, but know that your arguments do not make sense and you are convincing no one (except those that are already drinking the Fox Kool-Aid).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You seriously think there wasn't collusion?

Yes. No collusion.

Again, the Russian's purpose is to sow dissent. They succeeded. They did not expect Trump to win--they were trying to marginalize HRC. Read the Intelligence Report that was released in January. It makes perfect sense.

As far as talking to the Russians, that goes on all the time. Press made a big deal about Sessions speaking to the ambassador--but he spoke to something like 25 ambassadors last year. Nothing burger.

Ok so why is Flynn out of a job, why is Sessions recused? Why did Sessions fail to disclose a 3 meeting?

Why are there 10 or whatever people listed in the Steel dossier who are dead since the dossier was made public?

Why did the RNC change exactly one platform item in Cleveland - Ukraine and nothing else?

Why does Trump never castigate Russia in his diatribes about the ills of the world?

Why did Nunes freak out and work with the White House to concoct this story in the dead of night?

Why did Roger Stone communicate with Russian cyberspies?

How did both Stone and Giuliani know that something was going to happen with Podesta and Hillary's emails hours and days before Wikileaks released them?

How do you account for Trump's denials of "deals" with Russians when in fact he has hundreds of millions of debt to Russians?

How do you explain Paul Manafoft, Trump's campaign manager who LIVES in Trump Tower and has taken millions in Russian money to help Putin?

The list goes on, but I would be curious as to your explanations for all of these coincidences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And not for political reasons. Innocent people don't lie, and she tried to fan the flames by running to MSNBC of all places. She only proved what Trump tweeted. It is very serious.

When was the last time Trump utters truth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And not for political reasons. Innocent people don't lie, and she tried to fan the flames by running to MSNBC of all places. She only proved what Trump tweeted. It is very serious.

Again, she is not lying. Trump campaign colluded with people under FISA warrants. They got caught, recorded and unmasked. That is the issue at hand. Repeating your deflection propaganda doesn't negate that. Who unmasked them is irrelevant. The fact is they were conspiring to commit illegal acts. Which you seem to be content to ignore.

[Anonymous]

The FBI, CIA, NSA are the ones that do the unmasking. They are the ones that collect the info. and investigate it. James Comey has said in the past they are obsessive about protecting American privacy and identities. The national security advisor is not a investigator, she is a white house staffer. The president's staff is a consumer of intelligence, not a generator or collector of it. If Susan Rice was asking to unmask American's it was for political interests.
Then we have Obama at the end of his term changing the rules of intelligence info. Again political motives, and of course what Farkas said about the leaks. A former president spying on a new one is as bad as it gets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that this subject is already 23 pages long. If there were absolutely nothing there, I don't think people would be asking questions.

Nobody is asking questions. We are well aware what happened. It's this long because desperate Trumpers keep latching on and acting like this is their life preserver and misrepresenting FACTS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

*ANY* NSA, *ANY* Attorney General.
She was 100% within the boundary of her job, which was NSA, to request the NSC to unmask that information, or to possess it if someone else had and the NSC had granted the request.

THIS ISN'T HARD to understand.

Yup. She was 100% in the boundary of her job. However, it still does not explain why she did it. As Rand Paul said, (paraphrase) if it wasn't for politics--then why wasn't FBI involved?
WH does not do investigations.

Liberals have to ignore this to make their talking points work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The FBI, CIA, NSA are the ones that do the unmasking. They are the ones that collect the info. and investigate it. James Comey has said in the past they are obsessive about protecting American privacy and identities. The national security advisor is not a investigator, she is a white house staffer. The president's staff is a consumer of intelligence, not a generator or collector of it. If Susan Rice was asking to unmask American's it was for political interests.
Then we have Obama at the end of his term changing the rules of intelligence info. Again political motives, and of course what Farkas said about the leaks. A former president spying on a new one is as bad as it gets.

AGAIN, you are completely ignoring the fact that there was collusion with people under FISA warrants. AND Comey did say that the National Security Advisor DID have the authority to unmask. So, what was your point again. What is the illegal act you are discussing? Oh yeah. The collusion of people under FISA warrants. 24 pages in and you still refuse to address that. Why? If you are truly not a troll (which I am fairly certain you are) please give us your thoughts on the contacts that the campaign made with people under FISA warrants that were significant enough to be identified. (There are lots of conversations that were not flagged - for something to be flagged, there was something of interest in the conversation that occurred).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

*ANY* NSA, *ANY* Attorney General.
She was 100% within the boundary of her job, which was NSA, to request the NSC to unmask that information, or to possess it if someone else had and the NSC had granted the request.

THIS ISN'T HARD to understand.

Yup. She was 100% in the boundary of her job. However, it still does not explain why she did it. As Rand Paul said, (paraphrase) if it wasn't for politics--then why wasn't FBI involved?
WH does not do investigations.

Liberals have to ignore this to make their talking points work

Aren't you cute!
You do realize the FBI was the one who requested the FISA warrant right? The FBI was involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And not for political reasons. Innocent people don't lie, and she tried to fan the flames by running to MSNBC of all places. She only proved what Trump tweeted. It is very serious.

When was the last time Trump utters truth?

Ha! So true! Trump must be the guiltiest person in America given how much the man lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

*ANY* NSA, *ANY* Attorney General.
She was 100% within the boundary of her job, which was NSA, to request the NSC to unmask that information, or to possess it if someone else had and the NSC had granted the request.

THIS ISN'T HARD to understand.

Yup. She was 100% in the boundary of her job. However, it still does not explain why she did it. As Rand Paul said, (paraphrase) if it wasn't for politics--then why wasn't FBI involved?
WH does not do investigations.

Liberals have to ignore this to make their talking points work

Literally laughing out loud at your stupidity. James Comey didn't tweet about it so FBI must not be involved. Sure, Jan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The FBI, CIA, NSA are the ones that do the unmasking. They are the ones that collect the info. and investigate it. James Comey has said in the past they are obsessive about protecting American privacy and identities. The national security advisor is not a investigator, she is a white house staffer. The president's staff is a consumer of intelligence, not a generator or collector of it. If Susan Rice was asking to unmask American's it was for political interests.
Then we have Obama at the end of his term changing the rules of intelligence info. Again political motives, and of course what Farkas said about the leaks. A former president spying on a new one is as bad as it gets.

You have bought the Russian/Trump disinformation hook, line and sinker.

Look, if Susan Rice sees a redacted transcript, it is her job to provide information to the President. If there is a there there, it is up to her to know what it is and brief accordingly. If she is dealing with, let's say Flynn, on the transition. And she sees that Flynn is in conversation with the Turks, then wouldn't it be prudent for her to watch what she is saying about the Turks to Flynn?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yup. She was 100% in the boundary of her job. However, it still does not explain why she did it. As Rand Paul said, (paraphrase) if it wasn't for politics--then why wasn't FBI involved?
WH does not do investigations.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yup. She was 100% in the boundary of her job. However, it still does not explain why she did it. As Rand Paul said, (paraphrase) if it wasn't for politics--then why wasn't FBI involved?
WH does not do investigations.

+1.

The FBI was involved idiots